Introduction to Financial Disclosure Requirements
Florida’s Commission on Ethics publishes a clear, concise online explanation of why certain people must file a financial disclosure form. It says, “Financial disclosure is required of public officials and employees because it enables the public to evaluate potential conflicts of interest, deters corruption, and increases public confidence in government.” This sounds good. It makes sense. But I soon learned that things get cloudy real fast.
Different Forms and Their Implications
For starters, some folks must submit a Form 1, while others are required by state law to turn in a Form 6. The Form 6 requires people to provide much more detailed information about their net worth, and liabilities, for example. In fact, a recent state law mandating that more people file a Form 6 led to lawsuits in circuit court and federal court. A federal judge appointed by President Joe Biden temporarily blocked the expansion of the Form 6 requirement after many local officials either quit or filed suit. However, even the easier to complete Form 1 isn’t always cut-and-dried for people who must complete it or enforce state law.
Case of the Hollywood Planning and Development Board
I found that Form 1 can be challenging for both those who complete it and those who enforce the law after getting a tip about a member of the Hollywood Planning and Development Board. This member also serves as president of a local civic association that promotes development in an older neighborhood adjacent to booming downtown Hollywood. Kenneth Crawford is the name of the Board member who also operates as president of the Parkside Civic Association. And he owns and runs an interior design firm, and owns property in Broward County, according to public records.
The Bigger Issue: Understanding and Enforcing Disclosure Requirements
Crawford’s association with two groups that promote development led me to an issue that I think is much more important. So I’ll use the Hollywood Planning and Development Board to make my point. The even bigger point, I think, involves how people understand state financial disclosure requirements, and how laws governing such disclosure get enforced.
Compliance Among Board Members
An example of the foregoing is that many members of the nine-member Hollywood Planning and Development Board had submitted their 2023 Form 1 by the time I started my reporting. Beginning this year people who complete the report must do so electronically. And what they turn in is a public record that can be viewed here. However, the financial disclosure form for Richard Blattner, a former Hollywood City Commissioner and citizen Board member, wasn’t online. When I contacted him, though, he was transparent. He wrote, “Filed last week. Must have missed the reminder.” Blattner also offered to show me a copy of his Form 1.
The state Commission on Ethics online public search also told me that Mena Morgan hadn’t submitted a form. Morgan sits on the Hollywood Planning and Development Board as a design member. But she responded to my email, saying she had sent her Form 1 electronically as is now required by law. Morgan backed up her statement with a screenshot. It showed she submitted her form on July 22.
Understanding the Search Process
I learned in a phone interview with Kerrie Stillman, the executive director for the state Commission on Ethics, that Morgan is complying with state requirements. Morgan is a new member of the Hollywood Planning and Development Board, therefore people must search for her form differently on the state website, according to Stillman. I looked up filers by their name, which works for people who have filed disclosure forms before. But I did not know to conduct a search by organization of filer or organization type.
Status of Other Board Members
Stillman also helped me understand where Hollywood Planning and Development Board member Steven Morales stands. My online search showed he hadn’t given the state his Form 1. He is a design member on the Board. So, Stillman checked for me. As someone who has previously submitted a Form 1, Morales was required by state law to turn in his financial disclosure form by July 1. But Stillman said the law gives filers a grace period until Sept. 3, at which time fines start to get assessed.
Finally, I discovered that the newest member of the Planning and Development Board hadn’t turned in his Form 1. Like Blattner and Morgan, Bob Glickman was transparent when I contacted him. In an email, Glickman explained he wasn’t on the Board in 2023, having been appointed towards the end of June this year. He also didn’t think the City of Hollywood told him about the Form 1 requirement in paperwork it gave him after his appointment. But, Glickman added, “I was notified by the state on July 26, that I had to file Form 1 and I believe they gave me until sometime in September to file it.” New to the process, he also “confirmed with City of Hollywood this past week if indeed I had to file Form 1, and they confirmed I did, which I will.”
Concerns About Compliance
So, out of the members who completed a Form 1, only one member answered N/A to all questions dealing with finances and real estate holdings. Crawford did this even though there is ample evidence online that he runs an interior design firm. Also, Broward County property records link his name to the ownership of two properties. Concerned, I contacted City of Hollywood officials and Crawford, who did not respond to my emails. But Raelin Storey, an Assistant City Manager, replied.
City’s Role in Ensuring Compliance
According to this manager, “Financial disclosure via a “Form 1” (or Form 6 for elected officials/candidates) is a requirement for certain public officials and employees. The list of those officials/employees is determined by the Florida Commission on Ethics. In fact, the City’s role in this process is simply to ensure that the official/employee is notified of their requirement to complete their respective form and to follow up to make sure it is completed and submitted.”
Gaps in the Law
Storey’s answer is interesting. The city is responsible for making sure that people they notify “complete their respective form and to follow up to make sure it is completed and submitted.” Immediately, though, a subtle distinction appears. The city checks if the form is completed and submitted. But it doesn’t determine whether the form is completed according to state law. That’s up to the state Commission on Ethics. And again, gaps in the law show how it is possible for someone to avoid filling out the financial disclosure form completely.
Enforcement Challenges
“Unfortunately, I cannot offer you specifics or an opinion regarding an official’s conduct. Only the public officer or employee whose conduct is at issue can request an opinion from the Commission regarding their conduct,” wrote Lynn Blais of the State Commission on Ethics. Of course, Kenneth Crawford didn’t answer the questions that I sent him. So that makes me wonder if it’s likely he will ask the state if it’s ok that he wrote N/A on his Form 1 disclosure document.
Integrity Florida’s Perspective on Enforcement
The enforcement gaps in the law became even clearer after I heard from Ben Wilcox, the research director and co-founder of Integrity Florida. He wrote, “In Florida, it’s not okay to not disclose a source of income or personal property. But for the Commission on Ethics to investigate a Form 1 filing, someone would first have to file a sworn complaint detailing the alleged omissions. If the Commission found that there were intentional omissions to the Form 1 then it could recommend a range of civil penalties including a fine of up to $20,000. The same applies for Form 6 filings.”
Conclusion: A Weakened Enforcement Framework
Again, the state Commission on Ethics can act, but only after getting a sworn complaint. And part of the process involves deciding whether the omissions were “intentional”. In other words, even though I’ve contacted Crawford, City of Hollywood officials, and officials at the state Commission on Ethics, nothing’s going to happen. Because someone must file a sworn complaint.
What’s more, the winds of change are apparently blowing in the direction of weakening – not strengthening – the enforcement powers of the state Commission on Ethics. According to Wilcox, “There are a number of changes to Florida’s financial disclosure laws that Integrity Florida would like to see, including the frequency of reporting to be quarterly or biannually. However, the legislature seems to be moving in the opposite direction, weakening the Commission on Ethics’ ability to enforce our ethics laws. Here’s a recent report about SB 7014 that Governor DeSantis signed this year.”
Steve Schneider says
Here’s a good article on the state Commission on Ethics:
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/opinion/columns/2024/07/05/florida-commission-on-ethics-desantis-lawmakers-weaken-ethics-laws/74283872007/
DeSantis and Florida lawmakers weaken already porous state ethics laws
Bill Cotterell
The News Service of Florida
0:30
7:45
The Florida Commission on Ethics was born about 50 years ago, when a pandemic of state and national political scandals made our legislators very anxious to look virtuous — while not, of course, getting too fussy about all that fair play and honesty stuff.
Some cities and counties followed up over the decades with do-gooder panels of their own that provided citizens a forum for whistle-blowing and gave local officeholders something to think about before using their government positions for personal gain or advancement to bigger jobs.
The net result was fairly limited financial-disclosure requirements for politicians and maybe a little less evasion of “sunshine” laws requiring open meetings and access to public documents. It is not the nature of the political beast to create laws that might someday snag themselves, so ethics laws were made as porous as possible.
Now, Gov. Ron DeSantis has signed a new law that further sedates an already-somnolent watchdog.
More from the Capitol:Florida strikes out again, as one more presidential hopeful takes swing and miss | Opinon
The biggest thing SB 7014 does is to require that all ethics complaints be based on personal knowledge of the people filing the complaints, not hearsay. Complaints also must be sworn and signed. That seems reasonable at first glance — we don’t need political rivals using the law to anonymously snipe at each other — but how often does a mayor or county commissioner do something unethical with witnesses around?
If you hear some local official say, “I should disclose my ownership of this land we’re rezoning, but that would be embarrassing,” chances are you’re either in on the fix or your job depends on keeping quiet. People with personal knowledge of someone else’s ethical conflicts are usually called “accomplices” or “co-conspirators,” not “whistleblowers.”
The new law limits members of the state Commission on Ethics to two terms. That’s probably enough, since they won’t have much to do anymore but there’s no need to put it into law. Republicans just really, really like term limits.
Restrictions also apply to local ethics boards. Ethics panels will be forbidden to initiate investigations on their own, and the Commission on Ethics will face a one-year limit on preliminary investigations, which determine whether a full commission hearing is needed.
Forbidding anonymous complaints is fair — you ought to put your name on your accusations — but it goes too far. Ethics panels should know an informant’s name but perhaps keep it confidential until probable cause is established.
The concept of a non-partisan, state independent ethics panel came about in a fun period of Florida politics.
While the nation was entertained by Watergate, Tallahassee had a lieutenant governor dropped from Gov. Reubin Askew’s 1974 re-election ticket for using a couple of Commerce Department employees to work at his farm, a U.S. senator dropped his re-election bid under a cloud and two Supreme Court justices were ousted for official imprudence. Askew, a man of boring probity and great popularity, led a petition campaign resulting in Florida’s “Sunshine Amendments” that included requiring financial disclosure by public officials.
It was a great time to be a Capitol reporter but a lot of officeholders didn’t share Askew’s appetite for clean campaigning and honest government. Some of them quit, rather than publicly report their financial holdings, and the ones who remained enacted regulations on lobbyist gifts and political campaign funding that gave an appearance of virtue, while accomplishing as little as practical.
Unfortunately, the ethics system has been easy to abuse. There’s always the political gadfly who’ll file an ethics complaint just because something looks a little suspicious, or the supporters of one candidate who try to ambush another with baseless allegations. News clipping like “Smith Hit With Ethics Charge” or “Was Smith’s Use of State Planes Legit?” are useful in campaign ads, and never mind if the allegations had any truth to them.
But rather than further weakening the ethics panels, a better solution would have been to encourage them to not just dismiss a bogus complaint with a “no probable cause” finding, but to publicly rip it up, kick it to the gutter and tell the complainant to stop filing junk.
Bill Cotterell is a retired capitol reporter for United Press International and the Tallahassee Democrat. He can be reached at wrcott43@aol.com.
Steve Schneider says
Here’s a link to another good article on the state Commission on Ethics. It’s by a veteran investigative reporter.
https://www.floridabulldog.org/2024/04/florida-commission-on-ethics-set-to-cancel-1500-fine-for-commissioner/
Steve Schneider says
There are two “civic associations” that cover the Parkside section of Hollywood, which is adjacent to downtown Hollywood, where upscale projects are exploding. And the force from this major infusion of construction money drifts to the north and south of downtown, including Parkside.
This background explains the tip that I got about Kenneth Crawford. He is the president of the Parkside Civic Association. I sent questions asking about this group, but got no answers. Among other questions, I asked if their meetings are in-person and open to the public. I also asked if anyone can be allowed to attend via their Zoom meetings. And I tried to learn whether the Parkside Civic Association conducts elections for officers and whether it’s correct to say that a good number of officials are either real estate owners, developers, investors or supporters of upscale developing leeching into old, historic Parkside.
Again, I got no answers, which is why I asked questions about Kenneth Crawford’s Form 1 submission and N/A answers.
Again, no answer from Kenneth Crawford.
For the record, there is a second civic association that covers the Parkside area. You can learn about it here:
https://dprpca.org/
According to the tip that I got, this civic association hosts members with a variety of views, not mainly pro-upscale development advocates.
Fran b says
I think all residential homes should be on the sewer system before the mayor’s industrial property goes on. Any financial help provided should go to homeowners. Many older citizens are on fixed income need the help., rather than the rich owners of industrial pr,operty!!!!
Steve Schneider says
Thanks for your comment, Fran.
I think you’re referring to this article, below. So I’ve reposted it here:
https://democracychronicles.org/what-you-see-is-what-you-get/